Sunday, August 27, 2006

Owen Should NOT Be Surprised

Owen expresses some disappointment that "Fair" Wisconsin is running deceptive advertising about The Amendment:

But I have to take issue with Ingrid’s group, FAIR Wisconsin, for launching this new rhetorical front.

The second sentence will not only deny civil unions and other legal protections for loving and committed gay families but it will jeopardize legal protections for ALL unmarried couples, gay or straight:

Health Care Benefits

Right to Make Medical Decisions
Hospital Visits
Pensions

That is just false. I would call it a lie, but I know not whether this claim is based on malice or ignorance. Nothing in the marriage amendment would jeopardize any of these things - at all.


The slide into deception (or worse) makes it clear: "Fair" Wisconsin has no case against The Amendment which is, ah, fair.

This should damn near decide the question for Charlie Sykes and Jenna. If the opponents must resort to these tactics, it is clear that their agenda is propaganda.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

You are an idiot.

Dad29 said...

You're late with that post, anony.

Usually you impress us with your intellectual firepower much faster.

Busy rump-ranging yesterday?

Doris said...

What I wrote there, I repeat here:

Is FAIR (sic.) trying to claim that such a power of attorney relationship would be so substantially similar to marriage that it would be forbidden?

Ah. Here you’re [Owen] jumping ahead of the litigation to determine something you can’t possibly know in advance--how the courts will interpret “legal status.”

What if the courts intrepret it not as the quantity of protections and obligations, but as the relationship itself? As the Fair Wisconsin blog recently reported, Citizens for Community Values, the sponsors of Ohio’s ban, just filed a brief arguing for exactly that interpretation.

They write: “The focus of the second sentence of the Marriage Amendment is not on the benefits or obligations assigned to those in the relationship which is given a legal status--it is on the status itself.” And they further state that the amendment “proscribes the very legal recognition of the relationships in the first place, for any purpose.”

If the courts agree with these claims, then indeed even a Power of Attorney claim will become unconstitutional because it constitutes a legal recognition of a marriage-like relationship.

Fair Wisconsin is rightly claiming the ban “jeopardizes” these things, which it very clearly does. Judges and lawyers are tricky. Owen, however, is pretending to know the future by claiming that any such a thing is impossible—something only litigation will tell.

Remember, the entire justification for this thing is that judges can’t be trusted. Here, Owen’s as good as saying “Trust the judges!” (with a nod to Ann Althouse for pointing this out months ago).

Dad29 said...

Doris, you are wrong.

POA relationships have NOTHING to do with marriage, however it is constituted.

I do not know, nor care, how Ohio interprets its Constitution.

I DO know that POA relationships in Wisconsin do not imply "family."

Anonymous said...

The thing I love about dad29 is his overt homophobia. If this coward ever posts his real name, I'd love to see his reaction when people, not characters on a screen would confront him. Just another coward with a keyboard. But then - so am I! I'm glad so many people who have him on their blog-rolls do - it really shows their agreement with his hateful views. I mean, come on - rump-ranging? I haven't heard that one since third grade. How about something more sophisticated?

Dad29 said...

There's little that is "sophisticated" about jamming things where they don't belong.

You might be very surprised at the number of homosexuals I know and get along with (very well.)

But that is none of your business, now, is it?

YOUR business is to call names, which you do very well. That's really "sophisticated."

dorisjohnson said...

Dad29 also calls names. That's my point in another post. There's a serious double standard here.

Dad29 said...

Doris, it is legitimate to refer to an African-American as an African-American. If that person plays football, he can be called an African American football player.

With me so far? Good.

If one is a homosexual of the male variety, they sometimes engage in fudge-packing or rump-ranging.

I know this is hard to understand, Doris.

Anonymous said...

Daddy-Zero, you seem awfully fixated on the mechanics of homosexuality. You're putting so much thought into the subject as to suggest a latent interest.

As a practicing heterosexual happily married to a woman for 20+ years, these thoughts don't ever pass through my mind.

Frankly, if I were related to you, I would be a bit concerned...

Dad29 said...

Anony, I think you're lying about your "marriage." But there are a lot of liars who oppose The Amendment. It's a big crowd, but bad company, as your Mommy used to say.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that you don't touch the central point of the post. What with all your scatalogical references to homosexual acts, you appear to be perversely interested. You're confirming the thesis.